Quote:
Originally Posted by timwilky
once you have mopped up, take time to think dispassionately. Nature designed humans to start knocking out sprogs as soon as they are physically capable. Not necessarily emotionally.
Nature would like a girl to knock out kids every year from about 11 to 40+. At one time nobody would have bated an eyelid at a 12 year old getting married. Modern society has deemed they are still children, but mother nature has not been told this.
Additionally think of the genetic programming lads have had for a few 1000 years. you start with early man, who is going to spread his genes the most. The one who bops any passing female on the head, drags her into his cave for a bit of hows your father or the one looking for the monogamous relationship. Additionally the females are also looking for the strongest gene pool for their kids. So Mr chest thumping club welder is the one knocking out the sprogs.
Generation after generation it is the ones successful at passing on their genes that are siring the most. No wonder we are genetically programmed to chase a bit of skirt. We cannot help it. It is all our dads, granddads fault, etc.
|
If you're going to go down the evolutionary explanation route, make sure you have the complete explanation. Yes, you're right about the male of the species but you've neglected the female perspective. We have some say in the matter (just watch a bit of David Attenborough for confirmation). We may be interested in the biggest, fastest, strongest.biggest bike, up to a point, but as creatures who are fairly high up the evolutionary chain, we are also looking for those males who will stick around to support/care/provide for us while we make the sacrifice of pretty hefty parental investment. We try to work out who will stick around the longest as well as having the flashiest bike!
That's the price we pay for higher intelligence - a longer period of dependency as infants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by -Ralph-
Loosing your virginity below 16 whilst illegal, you are not deemed old enough to be accountable. By sleeping with somebody below 16, when you yourself are 16 or over, then you are, so Carty is right, only 5 people here could be convicted of an offence.
Even that is 7% of the replies here though. Assuming this sample group is representative of the population at large (which it's probably not but it's all we have to go on), it concludes that 7% of the population, or 0.42 billion people in the UK are sex offenders because of a relationship they had as a teenager. The law on this is wrong and needs updated to something more like what the Canadians have. How can a government expect young people to respect a law, which is a joke?
.
|
Ker-rickey! I didn't know there were that many people IN the UK
